Wakilii

Sempijja Benard v Naikazi Florence (Civil Appeal 27 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 382 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court of Jinja at Kagoma arising from Civil Suit No. 18 of 2018
Decision
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Chief Magistrate's Court upholding respondent's claim to the land affirmed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, upholding the Chief Magistrate's decision. The appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his grandmother Lovisa Lubandi gifted him a portion of the suit land. The evidence was contradictory, vague, and lacked corroboration. No clear boundaries were established, and the purported heir could not identify the land allegedly gifted. The appellant did not testify in his own case, and the trial court correctly found the claim unproven. The award of costs was proper given the malafide nature of the appellant's case.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Chief Magistrate's Court upholding respondent's claim to the land affirmed

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent claiming ownership of a kibanja measuring 30 sticks by 30 sticks within land at Kiwagama South, Jinja District. He alleged his grandmother Lovisa Lubandi and maternal uncle Kizenda Moses donated the land to him in 2004. He claimed he developed the land until 2018 when the respondent trespassed, destroyed his maize plantation and trees, and planted sugarcane. The respondent denied trespass and asserted she was the sole surviving grandchild of Lovisa Lubandi and her husband J.B. Lubandi, who originally purchased the land. All of Lovisa's three sons, including the respondent's father Herbert Ndegwe, predeceased her. The respondent obtained letters of administration for her father's estate. The trial court found the appellant failed to prove the alleged gift, noting contradictions in witness testimony, failure of the appellant to testify, and inability to identify boundaries at the locus in quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the late Lovisa Lubandi gave any portion of the suit land to the appellant before her death?
  2. Whether the appellant constructed on the suit land and whether the said structures were destroyed?
  3. Whether the trial magistrate misdirected himself on the law regarding the application of the Letters of Administration of the late J.B Lubandi to the suit land?
  4. Whether costs should be awarded where parties are related over estate property?

Orders

  • The Appeal is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
  • The Judgment and Orders of the learned trial Magistrate, including the award of costs, are upheld.
  • The respondent shall have the costs of this Appeal and the costs in the hearing before the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Gift Inter Vivos — Essential Elements — Intention, Delivery, and Acceptance
For a gift inter vivos to be complete and irrevocable, three conditions must be satisfied: the donor must intend to give the gift, the donor must deliver the property to the donee, and the donee must accept the gift and take possession of it. Under customary law, no writing is required for the transfer of land by way of gift, but the evidence must clearly establish these three elements.
Burden of Proof — Gift Inter Vivos — Exclusive Occupation as Evidence
A gift inter vivos may be established by evidence of exclusive occupation and user of the land by the donee during the lifetime of the donor, which suffices as evidence of the gift. However, mere lengthy occupation does not establish customary tenancy; the claimant must prove compliance with local customary rules governing land transactions.
Locus in Quo — Purpose and Procedure — Prohibition on New Evidence
A visit to the locus in quo is to check evidence already given and where necessary to have such evidence clearly demonstrated, not to take new evidence from parties who have not testified. Allowing a party who did not testify in court to give evidence at the locus is a procedural irregularity that undermines the right to cross-examination.
Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Order 6 Rule 7 CPR
No pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party. A court cannot grant relief that was not pleaded, and parties cannot introduce succession issues at trial or on appeal when such issues were not raised in the pleadings.
Letters of Administration — Necessity to Sue on Behalf of Estate
Under Section 191 of the Succession Act, no right to any part of a deceased person's property can be established in any court by or on behalf of a person claiming as a beneficiary unless Letters of Administration have been granted. However, a beneficiary who seeks not to administer the estate but to protect or preserve it from waste has locus standi to sue in their own right without first obtaining letters of administration.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs are in the discretion of the court, but costs shall follow the event unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise. Family relationship alone is not a sufficient reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, particularly where the unsuccessful party's case was found to be malafide.
Contradictory Evidence — Credibility Assessment — Inconsistent Descriptions of Land
Where witnesses give contradictory descriptions of the suit land, particularly regarding boundaries and neighbors, and the plaintiff fails to provide a satisfactory description sufficient to identify the property under Order 7 Rule 3 CPR, the court is entitled to find that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (36)

  • Miller v Minister of Pension [1944] ALLER 373
  • Festo Androa & Anor v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1994)
  • Bogere Charles v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1996)
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123
  • Sangu Luanga Musoke v Galivango (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Muvonge Peter v Musonge Moses Musa CACA 77
  • Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1995)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Wagi Atilio & Taban Isaac v Elvira Ojali (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2009)
  • John Katarikawe v William Katuheemu [1974] HCB 270
  • Rehema Kiiza Lubega v Sempa Muvanga (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2008)
  • Butetegeine Kiiza v Kadooba Kiiza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2009)
  • Sajjabu John v Zziuta Charles
  • Joy Mukobe v Willy Wambugu (High Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2005)
  • George William Kalule v Norah Nassozi & another (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014)
  • Ovoga Poll v Wakanga Charles (High Court Appeal No. 13 of 2014)
  • Bulukidda and 3 others v Kakembo Sulaiman (High Court Land Division Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2018)
  • Oyet and Another v Abuola (High Court Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2016) [2018] UGHCCL 65
  • Ereu Vincent and Others v Adebo Regina (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2023)
  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Mpatanyi Julius v Julius Kamillesiige (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2020)
  • Kifamunte Hannington v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1997)
  • Mutebaza v Uganda (Court of Appeal No. 29 of 1999)
  • William Mukasa v Uganda [1964] EA 698
  • Okello Albino Agella v Bamabas Oryema (Civil Application No. 23 of 2003) [2009] UGHC 33
  • Herbert Kolga Suing through his attorney Miriam Nambi v Ekiriga Mawemuko Kolga (Civil Suit No. 150 of 2016)
  • Impresa Ing. Fortunato Federice v Irene Nabutire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company (1981) HCB 35
  • Sutherland v Canada (Attorney General) 2008 BCCA 27
  • Israel Kabua v Martin Banoba Musinga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Nakazi Cotilda v Ssemuanga Ben (Miscellaneous Application No. 398 of 2011) [2015] UGHCLD 93
  • Nassozi & Anor. v Kalule (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012) [2014] UGHCFD 73
  • Hannington Wasswa & Anor v Maria Ongango Ocholi and Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1993)
  • Onary Rajabu Ibrahim v Nana Comitang Limited and 3 Ors Land Case No. 173 of 2018

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Sempijja Benard v Naikazi Florence (Civil Appeal 27 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 382 (27 January 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.